India claiming Kashmir its part violation of UNSC resolution: FO

[war&peace]

This is not Atal Bihari Vajpayee's India, this is Ajit Doval's India. If you say that you are going to do terrorism in India, expect something in kind. India has no objections if Pakistan 'support' Kashmiris through moral and diplomatic means, but India will not tolerate if you say you are going to kill Indians to force a solution of Kashmir.

Ignored

 

[ito]

Ignored

Hope you ignore Kashmir and India too. That will be great.

 

[war&peace]

Lol. first you claim that only solution to kashmir is militarily, giving the impression you are ready to wage a war on india.
And then very second line, you speak about suporting mujahedeen.
And in third line you expect india to start a war.


Whatever happened to the bravado of pakistani army that there definition of war is only reduced to supporting mujahedeen, amd waiting other army to pound on you , that is very embarassing honestly.

All of them are logical and right sequence.
Mujahideen won't be handing over flowers..They will use nice weapons..so that's a military solution and if Pakistan start openly supporting them and of course they will inflict huge damages on Indian army and India will feel pressured to attack Pakistan either for surgical strike or full on war...
So what part you did not understand?

Hope you ignore Kashmir and India too. That will be great.

Kashmir we can never ignore. They are innocent people and one of largest army is committing heinous crimes against them and they love Pakistan and want to be a part of Pakistan and that's our human right to help them against the terrorism.

 

[neem456]

All of them are logical and right sequence.
Mujahideen won't be handing over flowers..They will use nice weapons..so that's a military solution and if Pakistan start openly supporting them and of course they will inflict huge damages on Indian army and India will feel pressured to attack Pakistan either for surgical strike or full on war...
So what part you did not understand?

.

Part which says terrorism is a military solution.
Please explain in detail, now that you have caught the attention.

 

[war&peace]

Part which says terrorism is a military solution.
Please explain in detail, now that you have caught the attention.

No time to waste..I have a lot of posts on threads so read around.

 

[neem456]

No time to waste..I have a lot of posts on threads so read around.

Thats convenient.

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

let them take to UNO where their beloved PM went.. Shimla agreement they killed with their own hands when they didnt give Kashmiries right to chose what they want... they sud leave Kashmir and save what they have.. more than 20 seperate moments are rising with in .. even dalits wants their own land now..
the world wants to have india to keep and eye on china is forgetting there are other bigger countries in Asia who will merg into new Power.

 

[-xXx-]

Read it again, I wrote "used to", that is the reason indians hate Hafiz Saeed so much .

Anyways I am not here to convince an "indian" how bad his army is, that would be pointless, so yeah enjoy your stay on the forum.

So now they are sleeping well?

And what pakistan army did to prevent Indian forces atrocities?

PS: Indians hate terrorists and you love them, whats new in here?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Another Day, Another Thread on Kashmir, And as usual clueless Indians blabbering on about things they know nothing about ......

India claiming Kashmir is not a violation of any UN resolution. There is a instrument of accession by Maharaja. However, there are resolutions that ask India to conduct plebiscite though they are voluntary.

Which Instrument of Accession ??

1) International law clearly states that every treaty entered into by a member of the United Nations must be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. "The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.


2) The legality of the Instrument of Accession may also be questioned on grounds that it was obtained under coercion. The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void."..... India’s military intervention in Kashmir was provisional upon the Maharaja’s signing of the Instrument of Accession. More importantly, however, the evidence suggests that Indian troops were pouring into Srinigar even before the Maharaja had signed the treaty. This fact would suggest that the treaty was signed under duress.


3) The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing . The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar. And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power .....



Thus, an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Instrument of Accession shows that the accession of Kashmir to India was neither complete nor legal, as Delhi has vociferously contended for over sixty years.


The Fate of Kashmir
International Law or Lawlessness?
BY VIKAS KAPUR AND VIPIN NARANG
http://web.stanford.edu/group/sjir/3.1.06_kapur-narang.html


----

Excerpts from 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR ––A REAPPRAISAL'

by Alastair Lamb

THE INDIAN CLAIM TO JAMMU & KASHMIR A REAPPRAISAL

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/autonomy...ipe-for-disaster.440287/page-12#ixzz4FhRGU9hA


Moreover, further shedding doubt on the treaty`s validity, in 1995 Indian authorities claimed that the original copy of the treaty (letter of accession) was either stolen or lost !!!




The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva, passed a resolution in 1995 proclaiming Kashmir's accession to India as bogus and null and void.

------------------------------


Voluntary Resolutions ??

1) UN maintains that "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE."


2) India approached UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter , BUT the decision taken by UN reflected that its resolutions were not based exclusively on this chapter .... The resolutions , apart from chapter VI , are based upon other chapters , including chapter VII

The fact that there does not exist any provision for the deputing of UN peace keeping mission under chapter VI makes it obvious that UN resolutions were not exclusively based on chapter VI .... The interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII ...

Besides chapter VI and VII , UN resolutions are based on other chapters also(i.e Article 1 , Chapter I (2) and Article 55 , Chapter IX) ...

^^ And this is not my personal opinion. That is Rosalyn Higgins' opinion on 'Kashmir Resolutions and under which chapter they were passed' .. Source: 'Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)

(Rosalyn Higgins is an expert on International Law; a Doctor of Juridical Science. She has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years (and was elected President in 2006). Her competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates)


3) Moreover, there always has been a general inability of the Permanent Five to agree upon imaginative and expansive applications of Chapter VI ... In Somalia, the Security Council deployed the UN's first operation, UNOSOM I, in mid-1992 to separate warring combatants and help delivery of humanitarian relief ....

UNOSOM I entered and operated without invoking Chapter VII

Further Reading: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/6/1/1305.pdf



The binding nature of these UN resolutions (acknowledgement from India at a government level)



Finally some quotes from Indian officials on Kashmir exemplifying their commitment to plebiscite rather than forced accession as history has found them do :-

We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir – a pledge made to the people because they believe in democratic government …… We don’t regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in
-Krishna Menon (Press statement in London, reported in the Statesman,
New Delhi, 2nd August, 1951)

The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible
-Letter from Govt. of India to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, 11th September, 1951

I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.
-Krishna Menon (Statement at UN Security Council, 24th January, 1957)

The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNICP, the assurances given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight – that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not.
-Krishna Menon, (Statement at UN Security Council, 20th February, 1957)

These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it.
-Krishna Menon, (Statement at the Security Council, 9th October, 1957)


India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them.
-Krishna Menon, (The Statesman, Delhi, 19th January, 1962)

Not only are the resolutions voluntary, they also have been superceded by the Shimla Agreement, which converted Kashmir dispute into a bilateral issue. That's the price Pakistan paid to get their 90,000 POWs back.

The POWs were repatriated under Delhi Agreement (1973/74), the Simla Agreement (1972) had failed to resolve this issue...


The UN refuses to accept the Indian position. Almost 44 years since the signing of the Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan but the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP ..


The Simla Agreement does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:


1) Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

2) Para 1 (ii) providing for settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

3) The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

4) Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

5) According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

6) Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is a clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.





Moreover, this Indian claim has been refuted by various UN representatives who, on several occasions, have clarified that, only a bilateral agreement, which solves the problem, would legally supersede the numerous existing UN resolutions on that dispute. Also, in the absence of any fundamental change in the circumstances, the UN resolutions can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and viod. For example in 1956, the then UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold, had clearly stated that ‘the UN decision is valid until it has been invalidated by the organ which took it. ......In April 1990, the UN Representative, Francis Guiliani, clarified: ‘a bilateral agreement, which solved the problem, would supersede the resolution aimed at solving the issue. However, as long as the problem remained, the resolutions would remain in effect regardless of when they were adopted .....

 

[third eye]

Which Instrument of Accession ??

1) International law clearly states that every treaty entered into by a member of the United Nations must be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. "The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.


2) The legality of the Instrument of Accession may also be questioned on grounds that it was obtained under coercion. The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void."..... India’s military intervention in Kashmir was provisional upon the Maharaja’s signing of the Instrument of Accession. More importantly, however, the evidence suggests that Indian troops were pouring into Srinigar even before the Maharaja had signed the treaty. This fact would suggest that the treaty was signed under duress.


3) The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing . The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar. And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power .....

Okay..

Assuming all this to be correct, now what ?

India has held on to its part ever since. Pak on its part has cried itself hoarse,

Nothing has changed nor ever will.

Reconcile & move on or let the party carry on.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Okay..

Assuming all this to be correct, now what ?

India has held on to its part ever since. Pak on its part has cried itself hoarse,

Nothing has changed nor ever will.

Reconcile & move on or let the party carry on.

No oppression lasts forever.

We should Resolve this issue, Reconcile and Move on..

But that requires a great deal of soul-searching (on both sides of LOC)

 

[dadeechi]

Another Day, Another Thread on Kashmir, And as usual clueless Indians blabbering on about things they know nothing about ......



Which Instrument of Accession ??

1) International law clearly states that every treaty entered into by a member of the United Nations must be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. "The Instrument of Accession" was neither presented to the United Nations nor to Pakistan. Hence India cannot invoke the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.


2) The legality of the Instrument of Accession may also be questioned on grounds that it was obtained under coercion. The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void."..... India’s military intervention in Kashmir was provisional upon the Maharaja’s signing of the Instrument of Accession. More importantly, however, the evidence suggests that Indian troops were pouring into Srinigar even before the Maharaja had signed the treaty. This fact would suggest that the treaty was signed under duress.


3) The Maharaja had no authority to sign the treaty, hence the Instrument of Accession can be considered without legal standing . The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was hardly in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hari Singh was in flight from the state capital, Srinigar. And it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power .....



Thus, an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Instrument of Accession shows that the accession of Kashmir to India was neither complete nor legal, as Delhi has vociferously contended for over sixty years.


The Fate of Kashmir
International Law or Lawlessness?
BY VIKAS KAPUR AND VIPIN NARANG
http://web.stanford.edu/group/sjir/3.1.06_kapur-narang.html


----

Excerpts from 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR ––A REAPPRAISAL'

by Alastair Lamb

THE INDIAN CLAIM TO JAMMU & KASHMIR A REAPPRAISAL

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/autonomy...ipe-for-disaster.440287/page-12#ixzz4FhRGU9hA


Moreover, further shedding doubt on the treaty`s validity, in 1995 Indian authorities claimed that the original copy of the treaty (letter of accession) was either stolen or lost !!!




The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva, passed a resolution in 1995 proclaiming Kashmir's accession to India as bogus and null and void.

------------------------------


Voluntary Resolutions ??

1) UN maintains that "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE."


2) India approached UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter , BUT the decision taken by UN reflected that its resolutions were not based exclusively on this chapter .... The resolutions , apart from chapter VI , are based upon other chapters , including chapter VII

The fact that there does not exist any provision for the deputing of UN peace keeping mission under chapter VI makes it obvious that UN resolutions were not exclusively based on chapter VI .... The interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII ...

Besides chapter VI and VII , UN resolutions are based on other chapters also(i.e Article 1 , Chapter I (2) and Article 55 , Chapter IX) ...

^^ And this is not my personal opinion. That is Rosalyn Higgins' opinion on 'Kashmir Resolutions and under which chapter they were passed' .. Source: 'Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)

(Rosalyn Higgins is an expert on International Law; a Doctor of Juridical Science. She has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years (and was elected President in 2006). Her competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates)


3) Moreover, there always has been a general inability of the Permanent Five to agree upon imaginative and expansive applications of Chapter VI ... In Somalia, the Security Council deployed the UN's first operation, UNOSOM I, in mid-1992 to separate warring combatants and help delivery of humanitarian relief ....

UNOSOM I entered and operated without invoking Chapter VII

Further Reading: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/6/1/1305.pdf



The binding nature of these UN resolutions (acknowledgement from India at a government level)



Finally some quotes from Indian officials on Kashmir exemplifying their commitment to plebiscite rather than forced accession as history has found them do :-

We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir – a pledge made to the people because they believe in democratic government …… We don’t regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in
-Krishna Menon (Press statement in London, reported in the Statesman,
New Delhi, 2nd August, 1951)

The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible
-Letter from Govt. of India to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, 11th September, 1951

I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.
-Krishna Menon (Statement at UN Security Council, 24th January, 1957)

The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNICP, the assurances given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight – that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not.
-Krishna Menon, (Statement at UN Security Council, 20th February, 1957)

These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it.
-Krishna Menon, (Statement at the Security Council, 9th October, 1957)


India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them.
-Krishna Menon, (The Statesman, Delhi, 19th January, 1962)







The POWs were repatriated under Delhi Agreement (1973/74), the Simla Agreement (1972) had failed to resolve this issue...


The UN refuses to accept the Indian position. Almost 44 years since the signing of the Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan but the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP ..


The Simla Agreement does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:


1) Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

2) Para 1 (ii) providing for settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

3) The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

4) Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

5) According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

6) Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is a clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.





Moreover, this Indian claim has been refuted by various UN representatives who, on several occasions, have clarified that, only a bilateral agreement, which solves the problem, would legally supersede the numerous existing UN resolutions on that dispute. Also, in the absence of any fundamental change in the circumstances, the UN resolutions can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and viod. For example in 1956, the then UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold, had clearly stated that ‘the UN decision is valid until it has been invalidated by the organ which took it. ......In April 1990, the UN Representative, Francis Guiliani, clarified: ‘a bilateral agreement, which solved the problem, would supersede the resolution aimed at solving the issue. However, as long as the problem remained, the resolutions would remain in effect regardless of when they were adopted .....

What is important is, it is registered and used in India.


http://www.centralexcisehyderabad4.gov.in/documents/history/1947_2.PDF

 

[third eye]

But that requires a great deal of soul-searching (on both sides of LOC)

More than soul searching , it need acceptance of ground realities & the cost non acceptance is putting on the region.

 

[M. Sarmad]

What is important is, it is registered and used in India.


http://www.centralexcisehyderabad4.gov.in/documents/history/1947_2.PDF

The UN recognizes Kashmir as a Disputed Territory and not as an Integral part of India.

Accession of Kashmir has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line

More than soul searching , it need acceptance of ground realities & the cost non acceptance is putting on the region.

Yes, India too needs to accept ground realities. Excessive use of force by the Indian state in Kashmir since 1989 has aggravated the situation, and it has further alienated the Kashmiris. Kashmir needs a political solution, not military action.

 

[OrionHunter]

See... Each and every Pakistani has a few specific type of relatives and friends...

★ A Kashmiri friend, who regales them with stories of Indian atrocities in Kashmir.

★ A Sikh friend, who badmouths India and tells him how badly he wants Khalistan.

★ A Dalit friend, who tells them colorful stories of atrocities by high caste Hindus.

★ A “door ka cousin" who happens to be an Indian Muslim and tells them how lucky they are to have Pakistan.

★ Another cousin who happens to be a top-tier military hotshot and tells them about all the Top-secret cutting-edge weapons that Pakistan possesses.

★ And a snow white foreigner girlfriend who tells them how she hates dirty black Indian savages.

And remember this, you simply can't beat them in a debate when they bring stories from these imaginary friends into the discussion, because you can't prove that these imaginary friends don't exist.

The millionaires club....

★ And Zaid Hamid tells them that one million Kashmiris have been raped in Kashmir by security forces.

★ And that the one million Indian Army personnel ran away in the 1965 war after they saw Allah's Army riding on horseback charging at them with shining swords! (Don't believe me? Check it out on YouTube. And most of our Pakistani friends really believe him!! Lol!)

★ General Hafiz Saeed told them that one million army personnel are in the Kashmir Valley who are conducting a genocide there where one million 'brothers and sisters' have been butchered.

★ And that India is on its last legs as Pakistan is going to capture Hind soon in what has been told to them by none other than God himself in Operation Gazwa e Hind where one million Kafirs will be killed. It's not just Kashmir banega Pakistan but Hind banega Pakistan! (Oh crap! I'm so scared I'm applying for Burkino Faso citizenship so they can't find me there...)


Ok, on a serious note.....

India claiming Kashmir is not a violation of any UN resolution. There is a instrument of accession by Maharaja. However, there are resolutions that ask India to conduct plebiscite though they are voluntary.

The fact is that Pakistani forces invaded Kashmir in 1947 in Operation Gulmarg under Brigadier Akbar Khan in spite of the Stand Still Agreement signed by them with the Maharaja of J&K.

Well, agreements signed by Pakistan are anyway never worth the paper they're written on!